Don’t fear ECHR reform’: Attorney general signals radical rethink of human rights court

Richard Hermer KC urges open debate on ECHR reform and greater respect for national sovereignty

The attorney general has called for open, unflinching debate over reforming the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), declaring that Britain must not treat Strasbourg as untouchable. In a pointed speech to the Council of Europe’s summer school in Liverpool, Lord Hermer KC urged legal and political leaders not to fear reassessing how human rights law operates across Europe.

“We should not be afraid – indeed, must not be afraid – of discussing how the European system for the protection of human rights can be improved,” Hermer told his audience. His remarks suggest a deliberate attempt to bring the government’s messaging into harmony after previous mixed signals on the UK’s stance toward Strasbourg.

While reaffirming his commitment to international legal cooperation, Hermer pushed for changes that would give greater space to national democratic institutions when responding to European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings. “International organisations and their institutions must always evolve,” he said, “to ensure they retain public confidence.”

Hermer echoed earlier remarks by Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, who last month also insisted that the ECHR must evolve. Both ministers appear to be laying the groundwork for a broader domestic conversation about Britain’s future relationship with the ECtHR, without framing it as an act of withdrawal.

A core pillar of Hermer’s argument was the concept of subsidiarity—the idea that implementation of Strasbourg rulings should allow space for national parliaments to craft locally appropriate responses. Too often, Hermer warned, ECtHR judgments are wrongly framed as diktats from a foreign court, undermining public confidence in the system.

To challenge this misperception, Hermer proposed replacing the term “execution of judgments,” commonly used by lawyers to describe the implementation of Strasbourg decisions. “The public’s understanding of execution,” he said, “is that it has something to do with capital punishment.” That terminology, he suggested, obscures the reality that many ECtHR rulings leave states considerable leeway in how to comply.

Hermer cited the UK’s handling of the 2021 Big Brother Watch v UK ruling on state surveillance as a case in point. Parliament, he said, responded to the adverse judgment “not just to ensure rights compliance, but to do so in the national interest, and on the terms of a sovereign parliament.”

While ruling out any withdrawal from the ECHR, Hermer’s speech marks another step in a coordinated shift within government. The strategy appears aimed at balancing a commitment to human rights with a growing political appetite—both in Westminster and among the public—for greater national control over how those rights are interpreted and enforced.

As political pressure builds from both left and right on questions of sovereignty, Hermer concluded with a stark warning: if the public continues to see the ECtHR as overriding British courts and democracy, support for the entire rights framework may erode. “We must counter the common perception of the court’s judgment on our national sovereignty,” he said, “and reflect the more nuanced reality.”

His words signal a careful but firm move away from unquestioning loyalty to Strasbourg—and a desire to reassert British parliamentary primacy in shaping the law of the land.